<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: SBSun: Prosecutors allege biggest corruption scandal in San Bernardino County history</title> <atom:link href="http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/2010/02/11/sbsun-prosecutors-allege-biggest-corruption-scandal-in-san-bernardino-county-history/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/2010/02/11/sbsun-prosecutors-allege-biggest-corruption-scandal-in-san-bernardino-county-history/</link> <description>Politics, Government and Business in Southern California&#039;s Inland Empire</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 09:55:56 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <item><title>By: Sgt Milstar</title><link>http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/2010/02/11/sbsun-prosecutors-allege-biggest-corruption-scandal-in-san-bernardino-county-history/comment-page-1/#comment-772</link> <dc:creator>Sgt Milstar</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:49:48 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/?p=2946#comment-772</guid> <description>An interesting reading from the attorney&#039;s website concerning the case that started this mess.
It looks like the San Bernardino County Flood Control District wasn&#039;t truthfull in its dealings with Colonies.
Colonies Partners, L.P. v San Bernardino County Flood Control District, San Bernardino County Superior Court:
Represented land owners in contemporaneous quiet title and inverse condemnation actions against the Flood Control District and the County;
a lengthy court trial in the Spring of 2006 resulted in a court decision quieting title to the clients’ property in the face of easement claims by the Flood Control District.
The trial court found that the District had no easements to compel the use of 72 acres of the clients’ property, now a major mixed-use development, for regional flood control facilities. The Court further found that
(1) the District was estopped to claim the clients had consented to the facilities,and
(2) the District had coerced and deceived the clients in its dealings with them.
Following sustained efforts to resolve the clients’ pending lawsuit for inverse condemnation, the County Board of Supervisors approved a $102 million settlement of the clients’ claims in November 2006.
Link: http://timkenlawgroup.com/timken.htm
Read though the website latest News links 2006 archives for any background information that you might need to understand this case.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An interesting reading from the attorney&#8217;s website concerning the case that started this mess.</p><p>It looks like the San Bernardino County Flood Control District wasn&#8217;t truthfull in its dealings with Colonies.</p><p>Colonies Partners, L.P. v San Bernardino County Flood Control District, San Bernardino County Superior Court:</p><p>Represented land owners in contemporaneous quiet title and inverse condemnation actions against the Flood Control District and the County;</p><p>a lengthy court trial in the Spring of 2006 resulted in a court decision quieting title to the clients’ property in the face of easement claims by the Flood Control District.</p><p>The trial court found that the District had no easements to compel the use of 72 acres of the clients’ property, now a major mixed-use development, for regional flood control facilities. The Court further found that</p><p>(1) the District was estopped to claim the clients had consented to the facilities,and</p><p>(2) the District had coerced and deceived the clients in its dealings with them.</p><p>Following sustained efforts to resolve the clients’ pending lawsuit for inverse condemnation, the County Board of Supervisors approved a $102 million settlement of the clients’ claims in November 2006.</p><p>Link: <a
href="http://timkenlawgroup.com/timken.htm" rel="nofollow">http://timkenlawgroup.com/timken.htm</a></p><p>Read though the website latest News links 2006 archives for any background information that you might need to understand this case.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
